this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
186 points (93.9% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2378 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Notably, Chang's report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line."

(...)

"The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students' early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Jumping through hoops after Hoops after hoops all to avoid admitting that the problem is capitalism. Classic

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Capitalism? How about people just might not want kids enough for birthrate to be higher than 2?

Even North European countries with all their social programs and safety nets are way under 2.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but what about eco-anxiety which is another big reason to not wanting a child, and which is another effect of capitalism

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eco anxiety wasn't a thing in the 70s and 80s, birthrate in rich nations was still under 2 for locals.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

During the time period when the highest tax brackets fell from 70% to 50%... Down to now 37%.

Surely the people holding the most money paying near half the taxes they used to didn't cause them to hold onto that money and drive more and more money up into their hands.

But I have it invested! So you can't tax it yet, but I rolled it into a company so you can't tax it or if you can you can't tax me the same way!

For capitalism to work there has to be strong legal bindings to taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor to make sure they don't get steamrolled by the system.

We having been pumping the breaks for years on those responsibilities, and more and more people in turn will get steamrolled and forced into starvation, homelessness. The mental health rates being low are directly tied to money in the middle and lower classes.

If we made a rule that for every 10 people who committed suicide do to scarcity that the richest person would be killed as well, we would run out of rich people not trying to promote subsidizing the poor pretty quick and trying to get the happiness of the people up instead of only worrying about profits.

That's crazy obviously... But we need healthier motivation to make the world a better place. That isn't a healthy one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Look at historical data, birthrate just goes down as nations develop, it's true everywhere no matter how taxed the rich are or how much fertility programs exist. The whole world isn't the USA.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's almost like once you've stopped exerting religious and social pressure for every woman to have five kids and given access to birth control... The birth rate is going to drop.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

And you know, that's not a bad thing. Especially when the global birthrate is still higher than replacement, and the planet is finite.

Short term, East Asia should be less racist and take a few immigrants. Long term, we will need to figure out another way to keep the species going within the next few centuries.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Or simply accept that population will go down

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Population shrinking is probably a good thing, but population shrinking too quickly might be all sorts of bad.

It’s hard to see where we really are with so many variables, so many future decisions, but I believe we’ve passed the point of “good shrinking” and are well into “all sorts of instability and disruption”. If replacement rate is 2.1 kids/woman, and South Korea is already like 1.1, that’s a huge difference. As current generations pass, each succeeding one will be half its size. That’s a problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That can be solved by welcoming immigrants because it won't be solved by trying to force people to have kids. When social programs are introduced to help people raise a family you see a little bump in the numbers and then it goes back down again. It's as if people realize that having a family isn't just a financial decision, crazy right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Medium term, yeah. After a few centuries you're reaching dangerously small levels, though, assuming normal mortality. Maybe you're onboard with extinction, but for a couple reasons I'm not, even as shit as we are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ok, so the only way to reverse it is to reduce access to birth control and go back on women rights.

There's a whole lot of stuff that people in this discussion are blaming for birthrate going down but if you look at historical data it was going down even before these things were issues, just because people are more educated, have access to birth control and women have rights over their body. You're not moving back above 2.1 without getting rid of these things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Have you ever read A Brave New World? If we can get artificial wombs going - in a few centuries, which is a reasonable timeframe, I think - we could do it that way.

Yes, I know, it wasn't supposed to be a society to emulate, but that part at least seems fine to me. Getting rid of birth control would be dumb, absolutely agreed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One is science fiction, the other is the reality we live in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which thing is the reality we live in?

The trajectory of the human population is intrinsically a far-future question, of course I'm bringing science fiction into it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Artificial wombs are science fiction, the reality we live in is that babies need a mother and women don't want enough kids to renew our population when they're actually given the choice.

It's nice to dream, but let's face the fact that we're probably heading in a direction where human population will eventually be going down and is predicted to peak at this end of this century.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Like I said, in the medium term, sure. We'll still have billions for many decades after that, and then we have to start thinking about a solution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Bingo and people here can't wrap their head around that

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This simply doesn't matter. It's a purely economic issue that can be solved other ways besides the birth rate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

How come the stats are the same everywhere and numbers have been going down since way before the economy became an issue? Was the economy an issue in the 60s? Because people keep saying "back then you could raise a family on a single income!" but the birthrate was still going down!

It's funny how education, women rights and access to birth control are a much better indication of fertility levels than the economy, it's as if the economy doesn't have as much of a role in it and people are blaming it because that's the issue they're facing at the moment while ignoring that poor people have more kids than rich people.

Korea has that issue but the issue is the same everywhere and global population is predicted to start dropping by the end of the century, it won't just be an economic issue at this point.